The Trump Crime Family - Legal Issues

[finnbow]

“Nobody is better at getting indicted than me. Many people, big strong men, come up to me, tears streaming down their invisible faces, and say, ‘Sir, nobody ever got indicted in FOUR jurisdictions all at once before! You are amazing, Sir!’"

[whell]

Just curious, have any of you read the indictment? Particularly those "acts" that are cited in the indictment as "an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy"?

[Chicks]

Kelly Loeffler says Trump’s Georgia indictment is invalid because a witness sent her a mean tweet once
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/kelly...gechidi-tweet/

ROFL. Whell’s Wacky World.

[RickeyM]

When

Originally Posted by Chicks

Kelly Loeffler says Trump’s Georgia indictment is invalid because a witness sent her a mean tweet once
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/kelly...gechidi-tweet/

ROFL. Whell’s Wacky World.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Just curious, have any of you read the indictment? Particularly those "acts" that are cited in the indictment as "an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy"?

I did indeed. Contrary to the wingnut opinions casting aspersions against the mention of overt acts in the indictment (that they are not all criminal acts), the law is clear that they need not themselves be criminal acts, but acts taken to further the conspiracy. OTOH, predicate acts (under Georgia (and Fed)) RICO laws must be criminal and those predicate acts charged in the indictment are indeed criminal (while no non-criminal overt acts were charged).

This is yet another non-issue that represents a misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation of the relevant law to rile the rubes (it seems to again have worked on you).

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I did indeed. Contrary to the wingnut opinions casting aspersions against the overt acts (that they are not all criminal acts), the law is clear that they need not themselves be criminal acts, but acts taken to further the conspiracy. OTOH, predicate acts (under Georgia (and Fed)) RICO laws must be criminal and those charged in the indictment are (while no non-criminal overt acts were charged).

This is yet another non-issue that represents a misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation of the relevant law to rile the rubes (it seems to again have worked again on you).

You know the drill by now finn. Whell will say he was simply asking a question and then slam you for implying something he didn't say then blame all us lefties for jumping the gun because his dear leader hasn't been convicted of anything yet and claim the DOJ is corrupt because the aren't indicting Biden despite the mountains of "obvious" proof.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I did indeed. Contrary to the wingnut opinions casting aspersions against the overt acts (that they are not all criminal acts), the law is clear that they need not themselves be criminal acts, but acts taken to further the conspiracy. OTOH, predicate acts (under Georgia (and Fed)) RICO laws must be criminal and those charged in the indictment are (while no non-criminal overt acts were charged).

This is yet another non-issue that represents a misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation of the relevant law to rile the rubes (it seems to again have worked again on you).

Now we know why Giuliani got confused with Four Seasons.

Enrico Trump has a Latin flair to it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I did indeed. Contrary to the wingnut opinions casting aspersions against the overt acts (that they are not all criminal acts), the law is clear that they need not themselves be criminal acts, but acts taken to further the conspiracy. OTOH, predicate acts (under Georgia (and Fed)) RICO laws must be criminal and those charged in the indictment are (while no non-criminal overt acts were charged).

This is yet another non-issue that represents a misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation of the relevant law to rile the rubes (it seems to again have worked again on you).

I don't disagree with the first part of your assessment. As to your second paragraph, venture forth and fornicate with thyself.

Examples:

Act 1.

On or about the 4th day of November 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP made nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election. Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed draft speech with unindicted coconspirator
Individual l, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Act 22

On or about the 3rd day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Georgia hearings on @OANN. Amazing!" This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.


So, the prosecutor claims that preparation for an election night speech and the delivery of that speech are overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. All candidates do this. The speech was Trump stating his belief (whether you or I think it was honest or not isn't relevant) that there was something irregular about the vote tallies. Is this not protected speech? And yes, I get the fact that a RICO charge is usually a laundry list of "acts". But at what point is a speech a first amendment right, and at what point does it become and overt act?

At what point is a tweet protected speech versus an overt act? It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that, for example, the tweet was conspiratorial, correct? It seems that it would be tough to prove that a public tweet directed at no one in particular was "an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't disagree with the first part of your assessment. As to your second paragraph, venture forth and fornicate with thyself.

Examples:

Act 1.

On or about the 4th day of November 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP made nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election. Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed draft speech with unindicted coconspirator
Individual l, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Act 22

On or about the 3rd day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Georgia hearings on @OANN. Amazing!" This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.


So, the prosecutor claims that preparation for an election night speech and the delivery of that speech are overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. All candidates do this. The speech was Trump stating his belief (whether you or I think it was honest or not isn't relevant) that there was something irregular about the vote tallies. Is this not protected speech? And yes, I get the fact that a RICO charge is usually a laundry list of "acts". But at what point is a speech a first amendment right, and at what point does it become and overt act?

At what point is a tweet protected speech versus an overt act? It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that, for example, the tweet was conspiratorial, correct? It seems that it would be tough to prove that a public tweet directed at no one in particular was "an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

Once again, you (deliberately?) miss the entire point. These overt acts were not charged as crimes. They do, however, serve in this "speaking indictment" to illustrate the broad scope of the charged conspiracy (and thereby the appropriateness of using RICO statutes). FYI, in the indictment, there were 161 overt acts in furtherance of the RICO violation, 40 of which were crimes themselves. A conspiracy prosecution punishes an illegal agreement between two or more parties and although many of the overt acts are often legal, they are used to prove the existence of the broader (illegal) agreement.

Let me make it easy on you - in the Timothy McVeigh/Terry Nichols criminal conspiracy to blow up the Murrow Federal Bldg in OKC, renting a truck, buying ammonium nitrate fertilizer and fuel oil, and scouting the building were all individually legal acts but were overt acts in support of the larger conspiracy. See how that works?

BTW, unindicted co-conspirator #1 appears to be Tom Fitton, the English major and conspiratorial wingnut in charge of Judicial Watch. Not only did his dumb advice (heeded by Trump) result in the secret documents indictments, but his plans (with Trump) to claim voter fraud even prior to the election help demonstrate the planned nature of this conspiracy to defraud the citizens of Georgia (and the US). Had Trump listened to the real legal advice he was getting from competent lawyers, he would have not been indicted by the Fed and Fulton County for the J6 conspiracy nor the secret documents case. These crimes are on Trump and nobody else (other than his co-conspirators).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Once again, you (deliberately?) miss the entire point. These overt acts were not charged as crimes.

And you can't read. I stated that I understood that RICO charges often have a laundry list of "acts". I did not state that the "acts" were crimes.

Here's the question that I was asking, again:

And yes, I get the fact that a RICO charge is usually a laundry list of "acts". But at what point is a speech a first amendment right, and at what point does it become and overt act?

At what point is a tweet protected speech versus an overt act? It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that, for example, the tweet was conspiratorial, correct? It seems that it would be tough to prove that a public tweet directed at no one in particular was "an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

Originally Posted by finnbow

Let me make it easy on you - in the Timothy McVeigh/Terry Nichols criminal conspiracy to blow up the Murrow Federal Bldg in OKC, renting a truck, buying ammonium nitrate fertilizer and fuel oil, and scouting the building were all individually legal acts but were overt acts in support of the larger conspiracy. See how that works?

You couldn't have picked a worse analogy. You're comparing speech that is protected under the first amendment with an "act" that ended up killing people.

If you're going to claim that protected speech was part of an intention to change the outcome of an election, then you have to set a whole bunch of competing evidence aside and conclude that Trump's state of mind - beginning on election night - was intending to further a conspiracy to "knowingly and willfully join a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump".

Seems like a pretty big hill for the prosecution to climb.